Oly/Pan/Sigma/Someone make a ~90mm

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by TomServo, Jan 2, 2015.

  1. TomServo

    TomServo Mu-43 Regular

    77
    Apr 22, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Brandon Jackson
    Anyone heard any rumors about a 90mm lens coming to MFT? I haven't heard anything but would really like to have a medium fast 2.8 or 3.5 90mm lens for my EM1. I used 180 2.8 lenses in the past for tight head shots (on 35mm) and really would like to see this length available for MFT. I also would like to have AF so adapting a lens is less than ideal. I suppose there is the Panny 35-100 2.8 but it is bigger/heavier than I would like. Now if sigma would make a 90mm 2.8 or 3.5 in a similar design as their other lens that would be ideal. Small, light, and inexpensive.
     
  2. demiro

    demiro Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Nov 7, 2010
    Have you tried the 75/1.8? You have to pay for the speed you are not seeking, but damn, it is a great lens to me for head shots. I've never shot a longer FL for portraits though, so maybe that extra length is a big deal.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    I would love for Sigma to release an 85 to 105 f/2.8 to go with the ones they have already (actually I'd love a 9 10 as well but...).

    For right now though the options are the Olympus 75 or the Samyang/Rokinon 85 pair. The price is a plus on the 85's but I'm not a fan of manual focus. While I do at times, I want the option.
     
  4. metalmania

    metalmania Mu-43 Veteran

    244
    Jul 19, 2012
    NYC
    Second this. Anyone dares to make a 90mm lens will have no chance to compete with 75/1.8, so why should they make a suicidal move?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. TomServo

    TomServo Mu-43 Regular

    77
    Apr 22, 2014
    Nashville, TN
    Brandon Jackson
    I'm not sure it would be a "suicidal move" if it comes in at the right price. The 60mm Sigma seems to sell well land has quite a following. I purchased my 60 as I really didn't have the funds for the 75 but found that 60 is quite a good lens as long the speed difference is no an issue. I think if Sigma offered a 90mm 2.8 or 3.5 for $300 or less it would still sell well being 1/3 the price of the 75.

    Don't get me wrong, the 75 is still on my lens wish list and I think it is a superb chunk of glass.
     
  6. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I would think it would only make sense to give it a new spin -- like 90/2.8 macro. But then there's already a 60/2.8 macro.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Had the 75, wonderful lens. But didn't need f/1.8. AND with what I sold it for I got the Pan 14, Sigma 30, and Sigma 60 with some $$ leftover. An 85 to 105 prime f/2.8 would give a good 2 stops over most of the lesser expensive zooms so I also think, if priced right, it would sell.
     
  8. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    835
    Sep 30, 2013
    Lets see, the 60/2.8 is 190g, the 75/1.8 is about 305g and the 35-100/2.8 is 360. The 35-100 really is not very heavy (weighs less than the 12-40), and is only a slight bit longer than the 75, I've owned both the 75 and 35-100 and found in use there is practically no difference in size/weight.

    If Sigma made a 90/2.8 it would probably be 250g or so, as a 90/2.8 needs at least 33% larger glass than a 60/2.8, so you'll save a little weight but not a huge amount. If you have to carry both a 60mm and a 90mm 2.8 prime, now you're carrying more weight (estimated 440g vs 360g) and bulk than the 35-100/2.8 and have to swap lenses more frequently as well. So the real savings would likely be in expense.

    A Sigma 90/2.8 does make a lot of sense though, as that means a ~135 equiv on ASP-C as well. If Sigma made it in FE mount, that hits 3 systems with one lens, though it would likely be a little bigger. A 90/2 would probably be a very good seller in all systems, but that would be quite a bit bigger yet and significantly more expensive.
     
  9. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I was thinking the same thing two weeks ago: why there is no 85 - 150 fixed lens? Ok, the 300 f/4 is coming, but nothing in the middle, both as price and as focal length.
    I have nothing against the pro zooms but a sigma 60 is 150 euro vs 1000/1500 of the zooms.
     
  10. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    A 90 for sigma would be a good lens, for us m43 users we get a nice 180mm for Sony users we get a 135 equivalent its a win win for both sets of users, I would probably buy one of each and be very happy. I would like an f2 but would live with a 2.8 especially if it had near to the 60 iq, could see Sigma selling a lot if they did.
     
  11. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    I'm guessing it's because the market is simply not there for it for something like M4/3. Look at the same FL in the DSLR world (190-300 equivalent). They do make them, but they're not exactly huge sellers, certainly not to the tune of 70-200s, for example. Using the 180-ish mm FL, you really don't need a small aperture (f1.8 or something) to get shallow DOF if you're doing portraits, for example. So...most people simply pick up a 70-200 f2.8 (or, in our case, the 35-100 or 40-150 2.8) and call it a day...that way they have a lens that's happy shooting sports, wildlife, portraits, etc.

    Don't get me wrong, I think what a lot of people are proposing here is a great idea, but such a lens would have to deliver a lot (superb quality at a very attractive price) to sell in big numbers for a system that already has an excellent (albeit expensive) 75 and 40-150 2.8 (albeit expensive and rather large by M4/3 standards).

    Realistically, a 90 2.8 would still probably be around $500-600. Given that price, I would still choose the 75 over it and I think many others would as well. Now, if they did something like Canon with the 180 2.8 Macro, then they'd have a lens they could market to a larger audience...
     
  12. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    Samyang makes an 85/1.4 for FF format (manual focus) priced 300 euros and from what I've read it's considered a nice lens (500 grams). Canon and Nikon have similar ones too (f/1.8). I agree that it is probably a weird length, too long for people and too short for animals, but there are a lot of weird people too :)

    I think it does not have to be an exceptional lens, something like the 45 would be good enough for many and it could go for half the price of the 75.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Yeah, it's true, Canikon have 85/100/105s, but they don't really have too many 180-200s. Just like we have plenty of 85-120 equivalents...it's a popular FL, but the 180-ish EFL, not so much.

    Still, I agree with you, if they could make one around 300g and for under $500 it COULD be successful. I'm always interested in new lenses. That FL, for example, would be great for street photography...I really like my 75 (or the old 135L on my Canon FF) for that sort of stuff...I can take true candids without interfering with my subject...a 180 EFL (so 90-ish) macro f2.8, I think could potentially be a hit for Oly/Pan.
     
  14. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    835
    Sep 30, 2013
    Hmm, Canon have:
    EF 180/3.5 Macro
    EF 200/1.8
    EF 200/2.0
    EF 200/2.8
    EF 200/2.8 II

    Though I do agree these lenses likely don't sell as the 70-210mm zooms.
     
  15. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    Well, not quite have...more like had.. ;) Only three of those lenses are actually available for purchase.

    180 Macro - Yes, good lens, and that's what I've been saying would be a good way to sell this proposed lens...
    200 1.8 - Has been discontinued for over 10 years.
    200 2 - Replacement for the 1.8, costs $6,000 and most people will go their entire lives without seeing one, even though the EF mount is substantially more popular than M4/3.
    200 2.8 I - Discontinued.
    200 2.8 II - Updated version of the I. Great lens at a great price. Does not have IS, which is a deal-breaker for many, many people at this focal length. Few people buy it...those who want a 200 2.8 usually go for a reasonably-priced used 70-200 2.8 non-IS or spring for the 70-200 2.8 II IS, which has prime-like IQ, IS, and incredible flexibility.

    All of these lenses are very, very, very low sellers by Canon standards. Of those lenses, I know one guy who owns the 180 (and he's a complete gear freak haha) and nobody with the 200s and I know tons of people who have 70-200s (including my old kit).

    I'm not saying it's not a good idea, or these lenses aren't great, but it's hard enough for Canon to justify making these lenses and they sell more EF-mount cameras than any other mount. M4/3 is sadly small fish (as far as sales numbers go), something that specialized is sadly not financially viable, I think, especially with the 75, the 35-100 and the 40-150 out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    835
    Sep 30, 2013
    Oh for sure, I agree that this sort of focal length is a niche and not really something that everyone needs, but Canon does/has made quite a few lenses in this range, I mean 5 lenses is nothing to squawk at, in production or not. More than they have made 135mm or 85mm lenses, for instance, which are more common focal lengths.
     
  17. LowriderS10

    LowriderS10 Monkey with a camera.

    May 19, 2013
    Canada
    For sure..before I go any further, I'd like to say that I'm NOT arguing with you, merely enjoying a good photo discussion. :) I like your posts around this site, and certainly not here to pick a fight haha.

    With that out of the way...I only look at those lenses as three at most, but really, two. I'm discounting the half the 200s, because they're just different versions of the same lenses and no longer in production, and the 180 really isn't meant to be a portrait prime, it's a macro lens...but yeah, you're right...*SOME* market is there for it...however, I'll bet you three donuts that the 135L, the 85 or the 100 (don't forget about that one!) each outsell the five lenses you mentioned put together by a MASSIVE margin. (Coincidentally, I've owned one each of the 85, the 100 and the 135L) And if we're going to look at that focal length, then we have to add the 85L 1.2, the 135 2.8 Soft Focus, the 100L macro and the 100 non-L macro....all of which are currently in production and all of which (except for the soft focus lens) are big sellers, compared to the primes you mentioned. Put together, as a group, the 85 to 135mm crowd outsells the 180-200 crowd by a staggering margin...a margin, that I imagine is too huge for M4/3 to touch at this point.

    Again, I'm really enjoying our discussion...I hope you have a great day!
     
  18. EarthQuake

    EarthQuake Mu-43 Top Veteran

    835
    Sep 30, 2013
    No worries, I love talking about this stuff as well. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the 85/1.8 outsold the 180/200's in terms of volume, the two 85s together almost certainly do.

    My broader point was that 200mm has typically been a common focal length for prime lenses, going back to manual focus SLRs, 200/4 or 3.5 were very common and relatively inexpensive lenses, and 200/2.8 started to become more common in the 80's or so, with every major SLR system having both a 200/4 and a 200/2.8 or some close variant (Olympus had a 180/2.8 in OM mount). I guess I find it rather odd that there is such a big gap in primes between 75mm(150) and 300mm(600), as a 600mm equiv prime is a really special purpose lens compared to a 200mm equiv prime.

    However, I can see why, with zooms as good as they are today, the 70-200s have replaced the 200/2.8/4s for the most part. I think the big reason Panasonic has delayed the 150/2.8 prime is that Olympus' 40-150/2.8 essentially makes it pointless. Its doubtful it would have been significantly smaller, lighter, or less expensive, it could have been a little better optically but even then there is little room for improvement, so they would have to compete on price. Its difficult to justify a niche product like that and then price it competitively, you almost have to price it high because of the relatively small demand it would see. So, yeah, its a bit odd that there aren't more primes in this range, but recent history has trended towards zooms here and with quality of modern tele zooms its hard to argue that primes are necessary.

    With the thought process above, I can see why a 300mm prime makes sense moreso than shorter focal lengths, currently, there isn't a fast high quality zoom for this lens to compete with, so it should perform favorably to the 100-300 and 75-300, plus it will work with the 1.4x TC to get you out to 420/5.6 or 840mm equiv, which I'm sure appeals to a number of people, birders especially.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Always love a good debate. But you guys are limiting your numbers the Canon which I think is too limiting. Full frame, US versions, currently for sale at B&H. I'm saying mount so it includes Sigma, Tamron, etc.

    Canon "mount" between 120 and 300 mm angle of view.
    • 12 primes (5 I believe have the word macro in their description)
    • 8 zooms f/2.8 or 4.0
    • + 2 variable aperture "L" class zooms and the 200-400 f4 zoom
    Nikon "mount" between 120 and 300 mm angle of view.
    • 11 primes (4 I believe have the word macro in their description)
    • 8 zooms f/2.8 or 4.0
    • + 1 variable aperture equal to the Canon "L" class zoom and the 200-400 f4 zoom
    m4/3 "mount" between 120 and 300 mm angle of view (discounting the silver/black and Samyang/Rokinon duplicates)
    • 4 primes (1 macro, 1 manual, nothing over 170mm and the only one over 150mm is manual focus)
    • 2 zooms f/2.8
    • + no variable aperture zooms that would compare to the f2.8s primes. Or not from the reviews that I have read anyway.

    Both Canon and Nikon also have that 1/2 way lens in zooms and primes. Meaning both the 2.8s and 4.0s with the 4.0s being about 1/2 the price of the 2.8s. So I could really see something in the 90 - 105 range doing well.

    Disclaimer: I had the Nikon 180 f/2.8 until they released the 70-200 f/4. But that's for my event work so the flexibility of the zoom does help.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    I have a 90mm f2 on m4/3s. What I did is I took my Vivitar 135/2.8 which I only gave around $40 for and hooked it on the Roxsen focal reducer. That Vivitar lens did NOT add up to the quality of any of my other 135s: Pentax 135/3.5, Konica Hexanon 135/3.2 and 135/3.5, and Vivitar 135/2.8 macro. But with the focal reducer the lens becomes so sharp at a low aperture that I've mixed up some of the shots and thought I'd taken them with another lens but it was actually the lowly vivitar!

    Hope this helps. You'll get what you want for $150. F2.5 or faster to boot. MF though. The f3.5s are all small too.
     
    • Like Like x 1